[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] RTC: Class device support for persistent clock

To: john stultz <>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/4] RTC: Class device support for persistent clock
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 05:39:47 +0100 (BST)
Cc: Alessandro Zummo <>, Jean Delvare <>, Ralf Baechle <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Andrew Morton <>,,,,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
Hi John,

 Sorry about the delay -- I have missed your comment in the flood.

On Wed, 7 May 2008, john stultz wrote:

> >   As rtc_read_persistent_clock() is not available at the time
> >  timekeeping_init() is called, it will now be disabled if the class device
> >  is to be used as a reference.  In this case rtc_hctosys(), already
> >  present, will be used to set up the system time at the late initcall time.
> >  This call has now been rewritten to make use of
> >  rtc_read_persistent_clock().
> Hrmm. So how is this going to work with suspend and resume?

 Hmm, I have never used suspend/resume, so I cannot really comment.  Here
is what I gathered by glancing over the code and some bits of

> Ideally, on resume we want to update the clock before interrupts are
> reenabled so we don't get stale time values post-resume.  For systems
> that sleep on reading the persistent clock, I'm open to having them
> fix it up as best they can later (partly why the code can handle
> read_persistent_clock() not returning anything), but unless I'm
> misreading this, it seems you're proposing to make systems that do
> have a safe persistent clock have to have the window where code may
> see the pre-suspend time after resume.

 Right now it looks the time is restored in two places, 
timekeeping_resume() and rtc_resume().  Of course once the transition to 
the new RTC infrastructure has been done, one is going to be redundant.  
For the time being I think it is harmless to have them both.

 That written, both are called from the relevant driver's ->resume()  
method.  My set of patches does not change it and as far as I can tell if
it worked before, it will work afterwards.  As I understand ->resume()  
methods may sleep and are called with interrupts already enabled.
> Am I missing something here?

 No idea -- anyone?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>